The crop insurance scheme, designed to provide financial protection to farmers against drought, floods, and crop failure, has now moved to the centre of political debate in Madhya Pradesh. Shocking figures tabled in the Assembly reveal that between 2021 and 2025, thousands of crores were mobilised under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY), making it, at least on paper, one of the largest financial interventions in the state's agrarian economy.
In response to a question raised by former minister and Congress MLA Bala Bachchan, Farmer Welfare and Agriculture Development Minister Aidal Singh Kansana, in his written reply, detailed how much premium was collected over five years including the Centre's share, the state's contribution, and farmers' payments how much compensation was disbursed crop-wise and year-wise, and what provisions exist for charging interest if payouts are delayed beyond 21 days.
The scale reflected in the data is staggering. Over the past five years, across Kharif and Rabi seasons, lakhs of farmers enrolled every season in major crops, including soybean, wheat, paddy, gram, cotton, and maize. On paper, the scheme appears to function as a massive financial safety net for the state's farming community.
However, when the crop-wise numbers are consolidated, a sharp contrast emerges.
Soybean: Rs 11,232 Crore Premium, Rs 3,373 Crore Claims
Between 2021 and 2025, soybean insurance recorded approximately 2.71 crore cumulative farmer entries across seasons. During this period, a total premium of Rs 11,232 crore was collected. Against this, total claim payments stood at approximately Rs 3,373 crore, reaching around 72 to 73 lakh farmers. In simple terms, only about 30 per cent of the premium collected for soybeans returned to farmers as claims over five years.
Wheat: Rs 4,524 Crore Premium, Rs 760-770 Crore Claims
The wheat data present an even sharper contrast. Between 2021 and 2025, wheat insurance saw around 3.58 crore cumulative farmer entries. Total premium collected amounted to Rs 4,524 crore. However, total claims paid during this period were only around Rs 760 to Rs 770 crore, benefiting approximately 48 to 50 lakh farmers. Here, the claim-to-premium ratio falls to nearly 17 per cent.
When soybean and wheat alone are combined, the figures are striking. Total enrolments of approximately 6.29 crore entries, total premium collected Rs 15,756 crore, and total claims paid approximately Rs 4,140 crore. This means that over five years, around Rs 11,600 crore more premium was collected than paid out as claims for these two crops alone. The magnitude is enormous. The disparity is sharp.
The Assembly data also shows that in certain high-loss years, claim payouts surged dramatically. In one soybean season, claims crossed Rs 1,400 crore. In some wheat cycles, compensation exceeded Rs 1,000 crore. These spikes explain why crop insurance is often described as a "lifeline" during agricultural disasters.
Yet, the five-year analysis reveals significant year-to-year fluctuations and a consistent gap between premium mobilisation and claim disbursement. The opposition argues that while thousands of crores are collected annually under the scheme, farmers often complain of delayed settlements and compensation that does not reflect ground realities. They question whether the balance between premiums collected and claims paid is equitable.
The government maintains that claims are strictly based on notified yield assessments and processed as per prescribed norms. It has reiterated that provisions exist to charge interest if settlements are delayed beyond stipulated timelines. For an agriculture-dependent state like Madhya Pradesh, where climatic uncertainty remains a constant risk, crop insurance is more than a policy instrument; it is a mechanism of survival. When it functions effectively, it cushions farmers from financial shocks. When it falters, distress deepens.
The figures now officially placed before the Assembly raise a larger question: Is the crop insurance scheme consistently stabilising farmer incomes, or do the sharp fluctuations in claims and the widening premium-claim gap point to deeper structural issues in assessment, transparency, and implementation?
